Deep in the heart of the South, a Republican runoff for the vacant seat in Alabama’s First Congressional District has emerged as a proxy war between the GOP’s business wing and a Tea Party movement that saw the government shutdown as just the first step in the right direction. The safe-seat skirmish between Bradley Byrne, a conservative former state legislator, and Dean Young, an arch-conservative Tea Party upstart, has taken on national import, as I write in this week’s issue of TIME.

On Thursday, less than a week before the Nov. 5 Republican runoff, voters across Alabama’s First Congressional District will open their mailboxes to find a double-sided flyer, a copy of which TIME obtained exclusively. At first glance, the mailer may seem like a standard plug. But it says plenty about both the dynamics of the jigsaw-puzzle district, as well as the national battle that is erupting for the soul of the party.

First, note the source. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the titan of Washington business groups, which were deeply dismayed by the government shutdown. The Chamber spent more than $35 million in 2012, and intends to mount a “vigorous” effort across Republican primaries next year in support of business-friendly allies, the group’s president, Tom Donohue, told reporters in Washington recently. On Oct. 29, it became the second major national organization to endorse Byrne, following the NRA. A series of local organizations and a spate of political officials have also thrown in their lot with the former lawmaker, who came up short in his 2010 bid to win the governorship.

(Click here to join TIME for as little as $2.99 to read Alex Altman’s story on the emerging 2014 battle between establishment and Tea Party Republicans.)

The mailer declares Byrne a “strong conservative.” One reason the Chamber applies the label is that opponents say otherwise. A former Democrat—a not-uncommon skeleton for conservatives in the old South—Byrne once donated to Bill Clinton (“the worst mistake of my life,” he says) and as a legislator took a vote that raised taxes a decade ago. But “by every reasonable standard,” says Quin Hillyer, a conservative journalist who finished fourth in the primary before endorsing Byrne, “he is a solid Reagan conservative.” The differences between two candidates’ policy positions on Obamacare, spending, taxes and social issues are small. As in Washington, the difference between the so-called GOP establishment and the conservative counterpart is largely a question of tactics and tone.

Byrne’s conservatism—and for that matter, the candidate himself—is a secondary consideration on the flyer. His smiling face is smaller than House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi’s. This is no accident. The subtext suggests that a vote for Young could jeopardize the House Republican majority, which was shaken slightly by the shutdown fiasco. And there is some merit to the theory.

Young likes to boast that he would be “one of the most conservative members of Congress,” and there is no reason to doubt the claim. “I’m a Ted Cruz guy,” he says, adding of Byrne: “He’s a Mitch McConnell guy.” Young’s reverence for the Texas provocateur, and his record of overheated rhetoric, have stirred fears even among movement conservative stalwarts. While the GOP establishment is all-in for Byrne, across the great Republican divide, Tea Party allies have been conspicuously absent.

The Club for Growth took a look at the race and evidently decided not to jump in. Ditto the Madison Project. According to multiple sources inside the Tea Party movement and in Alabama, grassroots groups were put off by Young’s ramshackle campaign and lack of polish as a candidate. (One notable exception: Our Voice PAC, an outfit led by former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle—the kind of insurgent the Club and others are desperate to forget—plunged in with TV ads for Young.) At a debate in Mobile, I watched Young flub a simple question about the recent Supreme Court decision on the Voting Rights Act, a critical issue in the South.

It is also possible that national conservative groups were put off by Young’s long history of comments opposing gay marriage. During the nine-way primary, he tried to coax fellow Republicans into signing a pledge to oppose the practice, which he told TIME was “ripping apart the moral fabric of America.” This stance is common in lower Alabama; indeed, it may have helped propel Young into the runoff. And it has long been a central tenet of the GOP, codified into the party platform as late as last summer. But now that more than half of Americans support marriage equality, a candidate with a deep-seated and vociferous opposition to gay marriage may not be what national groups have in mind.

There is no question Young feels jilted. “The establishment organizations are getting behind Bradley Byrne,” he says, whereas the national Tea Party groups “are not showing up.” He believes their absence is telling. “This is a bellwether election,” he says. “If I win, the Tea Party is alive and well.”

And if he loses? “If we can’t win in South Alabama,” Young drawls, “the Tea Party needs to hang it up.”

Correction appended, Oct. 31: This post originally misidentified Bradley Byrne as the candidate who botched the debate question about the Voting Rights Act.

There is no "civil war" in the Republican Party. Just a corrupt Establishment, which controls both political parties, desperately trying to maintain it's grip on the GOP. And they're recruiting DEMOCRATS to help in their efforts. This should be a no-brainer: A Tea Party supporter, pro Constitution, pro life candidate vs a washed up, corrupt, Obamacare and amnesty supporter backed by Big Pharma and the Chamber of Communists. The House desperately needs someone like Mr. Young.

Please, stop the nonsense about the ACA... It's only insurance and guess what, it's the same private insurance companies who are managing those policies! Nothing has changed, except you are now required to purchase this product, otherwise you will be taxed by the IRS! That's it, oh yea your costs are going up due to the added medical benefits the Fed's decided you must have, such as mental health, maternity care and medication coverage! Forget about those OLD junk health care plans that you used to have, they are "carp". You kidding me, the insurance companies are loving this one because it's mandated by ACA... Forgot one little item, your out of pocket deductibles are going UP, way UP next year, isn't "hope and change" a wonderful thing!

Tell me, how is Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker a "nightmare" for any GOP voter compared to LOSING Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid benefits by voting in the Tea Party or even GOP since the former RULES the entire party's decision-making process?

The
democrats must speak up publicly that the GOP is deceptively omitting any
reference to the FACT the Congress’ Budget “crisis” is by its own hand. What, wasting
the People’s limited fiscal resources citing Dr. Seuss or creating diversions
by plagiarizing Gattica is, in the end, any different in terms of dilatory
effect than, say, voting 42 times on “defunding” Obamacare? Does not the latter
just exemplify the “paid for” Tea Party’s self-perceived ability to “will their
republican minds” around applicable law?

The ACA
passed through THREE separate branches of government. From whence comes this
unfounded notion it is, what, “still being negotiated”? The only thing
“wanting” is the GOP Congress and its Governors to Faithfully Execute the Law.

Yet here,
as the evidence proves, the GOP puppeteer is just biding its time like a Desert
Horned Viper, in silent repose, waiting, it seems, to try once again to
“coerce” unlawful “concessions” to Federally enacted law via an
Unconstitutional Legislative Veto power. See, INS v Chadha (1983) 462 U.S. 919.
For all the PR the “new” GOP places into the stream of Interstate Commerce, the
rule of law and proper Constitutional procedure works and is.

Conspicuous
as the sidewinder tracks across a fading serene, the very “opportunity” to
“coerce” these “concessions” would therefore be- let me guess- “unavailable” if
(lo and behold!) the Speaker and Congress had NOT deliberately FAILED to do
their job to pass a commercially reasonable Budget as required by statute and,
indeed, Article I, Section 8?

Exculpatory
words do not provide for the Common Defense. We must capture the inchoate
revenue owed to the People before it is too late.

How is
the Tea Party’s subversion of our system of government not the gravest threat
of all? First the managed to “kill” the Free Press (see, Fairness Act
deregulation under Reagan Administration)…wait until they dupe the Baby Boomers
to vote them back in next Fall only to CUT ALL ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS.

Sorry, the minority party in Congress
cannot disguise an Unconstitutional "Legislative veto" [see, INS v.
Chadha, supra, 462 U.S. at 944-951] by calling it "a request for
concessions" or just run more stories in the (once mighty) media alleging
“they need to get something” for “shutting down” the government when, in
reality, they just want to “drown the government in the bathtub.” How is that
admitted Scienter to thwart the State’s proper functioning not a DIRECT threat
to our National Security?

So…please feel free to make hay over the
alleged “civil war” in the GOP as it deliberately wastes time refusing to
actually perform necessary job functions, as if, in the end, their ‘job’ is to
exact lobbyist-driven "concessions" that must be negotiated WHEN THE
LAWS ARE PASSED.

As the Chadha decision clearly
acknowledges in pertinent part: “[t]he
prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1 -- requiring all
legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a
House of Representatives -- and § 7 -- requiring every bill passed by the
House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the President, and,
if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House --
represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal
Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and
exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the
constitutional design for the separation of powers.” Id. at 944-951.

As such, it is simply FLAT OUT FALSE for
the GOP, the GOP pundits, the “conservative” media, Speaker Boehner or ________
to even intimate that the President even legally "could" give
"concessions" the ACA in the unlawful manner requested in the last
“shut down” would render our President's duty to Faithfully Execute the Law a
nullity. That's how absurd the GOP's position is. They are now asking the
President to commit an impeachable offense during the course and scope of their
own impeachable transgressions of applicable law.

It is
just a base form of Tyranny, really.

“In order
to know that a jar is jar, I open my eyes and see.” – Shankara

Not so,
says the “paid for” media run by the “new” GOP.

Just
this: if this purportedly "magical" Debt Ceiling Act is some
"krytopnite" (sic.) that (oh no!) just, well, prevents the GOP
Congress from doing its job in the first instance...what rational voter would
let them lawfully retain a Legislative Veto power henceforth, i.e., It is
UNLAWFUL in the first instance or void ab
initio.

If voters vote for the GOP…they are “voting”
to kill their own Social Secuirty/Medicaid/Medicare down the road.

What, “abortion”
or “gay marriage” matters more than receiving the benefit of the Bill of Rights
our Founding Fathers and soldiers fought and died for? The GOP wants to turn
our National Guard into a “private security” force for the Middle East as it
starves the State of revenue. Voters should know the “cost” of voting ANY GOP
back into office. Our whole society will unravel. And you want voters to “worry”
about Pelosi with a gavel?

Whoever wins this "civil war" -- which is an exaggeration -- the winner will be farther to the right than the majority of Americans, and determined to drag us to a feudalistic society.

All the Beltway stories and pundits predicting the end of the Republican Party do not take states like Alabama and the rest of the Deep South into their equation. The GOP is virtually the only party in those states, and whoever they elect is going to be dangerously anti-democratic.

These people have fallen into the LaBrea Tar Pits of eternal personal attack politics. All they can do is attack and that includes each other. They treat anything other than being on the far right as a betrayal of principles. And therein lies their problem. While constantly leapfrogging over one another to the right might work in red states and gerrymandered districts, in the long run, in states like Texas, it's going to prove to be a dead end. Their need to attack precludes any serious or consistent conservative planning. They are incapable of compromise. They can't govern. They can't win any new voters outside of the ones who are already rabid followers. The GOP has to somehow find its way out of this death spiral. But, as they say, the first thing about fixing a problem is to recognize the problem. I question whether we're at that stage as yet.

So a Democratic majority in the House would be a "nightmare for America" why?

Because they've done away with the ability for the minority party in the Senate to filibuster? No.

Because the last time Democrats were the majority in the House they locked the Republicans out of the governing process? Only if you believe Boehner rather than the 100 Republican addendums that were incorporated into Obamacare.

Because a Republican held House has shown us what a laser-focus on jobs looks like? Only if making "In God We Trust" the National Motto, and pretending they could repeal Obamacare 40 times constitutes a laser focus on jobs.

And there is no soul and they have no heart, it is the Scarecrow, the Lion and the Tin Man and the Wizard Koch Brothers have no idea the damage their ideology has done to America and now the Trans Pacific Partnership will trump all and American politics will become the student body elections they have always been.

The GOP's original mistake was what Goldwater told them - stay the hell out of religion. By tying abortion to the religious right, and given human nature. the GOP was destined to turn conservative politics into an extremist religion - which is what we have now on the right.

Whether motivated by actual fiscal goals or simply the hatred of the straw-man scapegoat of "liberalism" that's been indoctrinated into the souls of rural conservatives (or even overt racism given their opposition to immigration reform and the incessant and inaccurate portrayal of an "immigrant" as always being a Hispanic), it's pretty obvious that we're dealing with people who have an altered sense of reality - both the political realities of their lack of support and the fact that their ideology is unworkable in the face of human nature.

Not to say that the Democrats have any lock on how to do things. But this isn't about them and their myriad of issues.

The GOP turned conservative politics into a religion, and the rest of the country (insofar as a majority goes, and in a democracy, that's all you need) is against all of their extremist policies.

As for the argument that the old-guard GOP turning back toward the center is going to be seen as "flip-flopping", that won't make any difference to moderates and centrists. It won't hurt them. It won't help them. It won't solidify the strength of the right extremists. And it sure as hell won't help the Democrats.

EVERY poll is now showing that 60+% of Americans want Congress kicked out and changed - including their OWN REPRESENTATIVES. So the GOP party is dead. Democrats are on life-support. The tp never rose from the slab. None of them are expected to make it. They've all proven they can't or won't run government. They're too busy consolidating power, grandstanding for personal gain, promoting agendas that have been rejected by the majority of Americans and basically not doing their jobs.

The only problem is that the centrists have no center. Moderates have been forced to choose left or right (holding our noses the whole time) or we just stayed home because both sides stank too much. A third party is inevitable in this country because we don't like the two parties we have today in our two party system. But we have no party to turn to.

I know it sounds "out there" to say that our two party system is what the Powers that Be intend for our country because it's relatively easy to manipulate, but the fact is it's past its time. There will always be conservatives. There will always be liberals. But there will also always be more who are more moderate than hard left or hard right and it's time we who are, who know how to talk to each other civilly, who can negotiate, who understand the utility of compromise and horse trading and who want what's best for the country as a whole instead of just a privileged few or even themselves alone. Those are the candidates we need in Congress and the White House.

The trick is to stop looking at party and look at positions. If you can't agree with at least 75% of what they say, move along to the next one. Don't choose the lesser of two evils. Choose someone you WANT, even if you never heard their name before. If you don't like any of them, DON'T VOTE FOR ANYONE. Be RESPONSIBLE VOTERS for a change and know what a person stands for based on what they've said and done in the past. Not based on what party they belong to. The only reason centrists don't have a party is because the PtB's don't want us to have one. Moderates may do things they don't like or can't control. It's easier to inflame the passions to vote with rhetoric than it is with reason and when you pick the candidates that will run in the first place, it's all good.

Trouble is, that won't work anymore - unless we, the people, let it work that way.

If voters are angry enough at Congress to kick out their OWN guy, all that's needed is some organization on the part of centrists and moderates to be an inclusive party dedicated to working out the differences. Let the extremists divide. That's fine with me. I just don't want them taking my country with them.

First, note the source. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the titan of Washington business groups, which were deeply dismayed by the government shutdown. The Chamber spent more than $35 million in 2012, and intends to mount a “vigorous” effort across Republican primaries next year in support of business-friendly allies, the group’s president, Tom Donohue, told reporters in Washington recently.

When you lie down with fleas. Of course the Chamber of Commerce would do well in supporting dems instead since the economy always do better under dems. Except for the whole pesky thing of domestic spending and workers doing better too.

CoC and other business entities keep treating GOP as a monolithic entity and spent tons of money supporting the absolute worst among GOPers until they dug deep into the libertarian fringe. People who can barely tie their shoes and that consider all government non essential.And now they're going to make the mistake of pick corn among the turds in order to find someone that dance to their fiddle.

This is really just a war between the far right and the extremist right. The entire GOP has moved so far to the right that it's basically just semantics when we call the GOP establishment the more moderate wing of the party. They're only moderate in comparison. They don't appeal to women, the young, the moderates, independents, minorities or the middle and lower classes. In five out of the six presidential elections, they've lost the popular vote. How much more of a trend do we have to see to detect a pattern? The GOP has been steadily losing it's appeal. If there is a split in the GOP and the Tea Party breaks away to form their own party, how much towards the center will the establishment GOP actually go? My guess is not far at all.

Just this: since President Obama has been in office, his agendas have led to (1) a stronger US dollar; (2) a lower deficit; (3) extricating ourselves from fiscally imprudent GOP occupations abroad; (4) lower Health Care premiums via Obamacare's competitive pricing component and (5) saving the auto industry. What, do you simpletons really think financial institutions and American industries are actually akin to organic things that "should be allowed to die"...like the GOP's "outsourced" jobs never transmuted into new ones at home?

As such, perhaps you'd like to humor us with specifics as to how the GOP "lock-step" agendas of (1) deregulating markets; (2) starving the State of revenue forcing $24 BILLION in "shut down" losses; and (3) instituting endless wars/occupations abroad based on wholly fabricated threats served the People in better, more fiscally prudent ways? Last time I checked, Iraq costs over $ 4 trillion.

"They have WMDs. That is what this war is about...you have heard the President [Bush] say it repeatedly that [Saddam] has chemical and biological weapons there" - Bush Administration's Ari Fleischer

By contrast, Obamacare will SAVE the US Treasury and People TRILLIONS over the next 100 years.

The only "nightmare" is the GOP "Decider's" attack on the Bill of Rights.

In other contexts of such State Action that touch and concern deprivation of liberty or Due Process interests (see, e.g., Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584) the “victim” is entitled to a “review by a neutral factfinder”…but not when the United States’ (1) Diplomatic unity with our trusted European Allies is suffering immediate and/or potentially irreparable harm and/or (2) when the United States’ People have their Substantive Due Process Rights to receive the civil liberties contained within the 4th and 5th Amendments is the “victim”? It is axiomatic that "the Due Process Clause was intended to secure an individual from an abuse of power by government officials.” Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327. The refusal of the State to enjoin the egregious breaches of our Supreme Court’s precedent on the area of wiretapping and electronic seizures by the NSA constitutes an abuse of power in itself. There is ample case law expressly holding it is per se UNCONSTITUTIONAL. See, Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128 ("every wiretap must be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception"). The purported means/ends justifying the NSA's unfettered license to conduct the largest dragnet in the history of the World has (drumroll, please) proven to be as false as the purported WMD threat and/or nexus between 9/11 and Saddam.

@contactjohn"This is the demon under the bed for the Koch's. the TEA Party is their creation."

Oh, the ignorance, fear and insane anger that forms the mind of the "Tea Party Republican" (the reliable party base) is the creation of many, long in the making. From Reagan's "government is the problem," "conservative" movement, to Rush Limbaugh's snake oil, Ailes/FOX propaganda network, to Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, D!ck Cheney, Palin, Bachman, Cruz, etc., the monster was crafted by many (the Koch brother's are only one of the funders).

"I embraced her; but as
I imprinted the first kiss on her lips, they became livid with the hue of death;
her features appeared to change, and I thought that I held the corpse of my
dead mother in my arms; a shroud enveloped her form, and I saw the grave-worms
crawling in the folds of the flannel. I started from my sleep with horror; a
cold dew covered my forehead, my teeth chattered, and every limb became convulsed:
when, by the dim and yellow light of the moon, as it forced its way through
the window shutters, I beheld the wretch -- the miserable monster whom I had
created." -- Mary Shelly

"Not merely the idols fell, but also the habit of faith in their agendas." - Henry Adams

From whence comes the unseasonable notion that elected representatives are serving in some sort of partisan fashion, i.e. as opposed to serving the People that PAY their salaries? From whence comes this unseasonable notion that “if the republicans don’t fight on the Health Care issue with everything they’ve got, what good are they?” Well, Hannity, I guess that depends on if you actually think our elected leaders of EITHER partisan affiliation have self-perceived “discretion” to avoid FAITHFULLY EXECUTING the Constitution (aka the Supreme Law of the Land). Contrary to your contrived Buzzfeed “spat” with O’Reilly, you both want to obfuscate the self-evident breach of duty that such a “shut down” irreparably caused the State.

Excuses for malfeasance are a breath too late.

"There is always time to add a word, never time to withdraw one." - Gracian

In this regard, how can ANYONE credibly cite some unlawful “pledge” to a Lobbyist as a material hindrance on recouping the LOSSES that proximately resulted from the “shut down” itself? It can’t be both. You cannot concurrently deny that Lobbyists have not materially interfered with express Constitutional duties resulting in the “shut down” (e.g., fiscal shortfall that results from trying to “drown government in the bathtub”) and simultaneously refuse to honor Article I, Section 8’s revenue raising-function to “cure” via "Taxation" the undisputed BILLIONS that resulted from the “shut down” (aka breach of duty).

In this regard, the real Republican “revolt” is actually against the rule of law. How was the “shut down” not a deprivation of Procedural Due Process if it is undisputed under our laws that the Due Process Clause was intended to secure an individual from an abuse of power by government officials? See Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327. For this “shut down” was not a "reasonable disagreement over abstract legal policy, etc."

This is turning Stare Decisis on its head and pretending our ability to police our own elected officials from the pull of Foreign money donors is somehow limited or dead.

"Thy love afar is spite at home." - Emerson

Just this: there is NO COMPELLING STATE INTEREST in “refusing” to simply raise taxes whenthe result is a manifest injury to the State, the People and US Treasury’s ability to meet its obligations for no reason at all.

Moreover, the People have a Substantive Due Process right to a STRONG and SOLVENT Military/Police/EMT/CIA/FBI that provides for the “Common Defense” per Article I, Section 8’s express language. No amount of “partisan posturing” ameliorates this legal obligation of the express language contained in the Constitution.

Stated differently, the GOP simply wants to pay lip service to a “strict construction” on the Constitution as its Admissions and unlawful conspiracies to “defund” the State clearly show the voters actual malice towards the rule of law.

Finally, whether or not certain terms of art in the Constitution require more detailed “construction” is, by virtue of precedent, solely the purview of the Independent Judiciary (see, e.g., Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137). Here, however, the undisputed evidence in the record shows that the GOP Congress has simply cited its own self-perceived right to engage in Anticipatory Repudiation at the expense of the Common Defense and People’s general welfare, i.e., both clearly enumerated Due Process rights of the People under Article I, Section 8.

For it is the rule of law that binds the People, the State and those that serve us- to ensure the proper performance of the Social Contract from which the Police Power reserved to the Several States springs- like the sinew that contains us, and figuratively to all living things.

Let the rule of law- not some alleged, ever-changing will of one party’s base- guide us as precedent has done thus far, dispassionately.

You obviously have missed the last five of six presidential elections. The last election - Democrats took the Presidency and seats in the House and Senate. Could it be their move to the center by Bill Clinton paid off. Yes. You don't need a third party, you simple need to move Republicans off the right wing cliff. There's no magic third party; certainly not Libertarians.

@DeweySayenoff I always vote for 3rd party when possible. It doesn't matter which 3rd party either, although i disagree with most of their platforms. The point, after all, is to vote against the 2 parties.

@DeweySayenoff The people voted for these idiots then they complain. Thats why I vote Libertarian. People need to start voting a 3rd party. But they want to only vote for a winner. But the guy who wins always stinks. Yea your candidate won't win at first. But the more people who vote 3rd party then they could actually win.

@sacredh "The entire GOP has moved so far to the right that it's basically just
semantics when we call the GOP establishment the more moderate wing of
the party."

"I need not describe the feelings of those whose dearest ties are rent by
that most irreparable evil; the void that presents itself to the soul;
and the despair that is exhibited on the countenance. It is so long
before the mind can persuade itself that she, whom we saw every day, and
whose very existence appeared a part of our own, can have departed for
ever--that the brightness of a beloved eye can have been extinguished,
and the sound of a voice so familiar, and dear to the ear, can be
hushed, never more to be heard." -- Mary Shelly

@sacredh I'm not sure about that. Part of the reason they've gone so far is the threat of being primaried from the right. If the TEA party splits off, most of that threat would be gone. Sure, they'll still be nuts, but a lot less nuts.

@Ohiolib, as I see it, the establishment GOP has agreed to so many far right ideas that any move towards the center would be seen as flip-flopping and they'd face those charges in tea party challenges during the primary seasons. They did climb in bed with the devil and now they're pretty well stuck with the positions they took.

Let's see, "gay rights in the workplace"…check. "TSA worker over coverage"…check. "Supreme Court will hear prayer case even though GOP declares war on Christian Values and Jesus' teachings of Altruism"…check.

Can the GOP and/or GOP Congress be any more obvious in its blatantly continuous, incorrigible attempts to inject- wait, no…to force- the most divisive, unsolvable and politically incorrect theories into the stream of American culture/Fairness Act-less media's radar screen in these kinds of "controversial topics" dispensed with an eye towards slowly but surely creeping towards the next fabricated "crisis" proximately caused by their own refusal to raise revenue under Article I, Section 8?

(sigh.)

Enough already.

Give the People the commercially reasonable Budget that is required by LAW on an annual basis. The notion the GOP Congress can simply "fail to act" and then cite the foreseeable "chaos" as being indicative of a "failure of government" turns the very purpose of the Social Contract on its head.

"Certain laws have not been written, but they are more fixed than all the written laws." - Seneca (1st C. A.D.)How can Sen. Leahy just stand there as the GOP Congress subverts the express intent of our Founding Fathers' prescribed duties over what, exactly? Alleged "partisan differences"? That the President refuses to honor your Unconstitutional Legislative Veto request to "defund" the ACA? Uh, should members of the bar just "forget" our rule of law PRECLUDES such State Action [see, e.g., INS v Chadha (1982) 462 U.S. 919]? Above all, there is NO LEGAL AUTHORITY that gives ANY member of the Senate any self-perceived discretion to subvert the "Advice and Consent" function of the Senate- not over some fabricated Benghazi hearing/red herring, much less the "will of money donors".

Why pretend that our National Security interests are "served" by "shutting down" the government only to, what, "reopen" it and "refuse" to honor the express requirements of your offices? You are all SERVANTS of the People. Let's hope Sen. Leahy honors Procedural Due Process rights on our behalf by upholding the law, by rebuking those that subvert its plain meaning- not merely via overt dilatory tactics and obstructionist conduct- but "openly questioning" the rule of law itself. How was the “shut down”- or just the subversion of the "Appointment Power" not a deprivation of Procedural Due Process if it is undisputed under our laws that the Due Process Clause was intended to secure an individual from an abuse of power by government officials? Daniels v. Williams (1986) 474 U.S. 327.

In other contexts of such State Action that touch and concern deprivation of liberty or Due Process interests (see, e.g., Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584) the “victim” is entitled to a “review by a neutral factfinder”…but not when the United States’ (1) Diplomatic unity with our trusted European Allies is suffering immediate and/or potentially irreparable harm and/or (2) when the United States’ People have their Substantive Due Process Rights to receive the civil liberties contained within the 4th and 5th Amendments is the “victim”? Again, it is axiomatic that the Due Process Clause was intended to PROTECT the PEOPLE from an abuse of power by government officials. See, e.g., Daniels v. Williams, supra. The refusal of the State to enjoin the egregious breaches of our Supreme Court’s precedent on the area of wiretapping and electronic seizures by the NSA constitutes an abuse of power in itself. There is ample case law expressly holding it is per se UNCONSTITUTIONAL. See, Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128 ("every wiretap must be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception"). The purported means/ends justifying the NSA's unfettered license to conduct the largest dragnet in the history of the World has (drumroll, please) proven to be as false as the purported WMD threat and/or nexus between 9/11 and Saddam.

"Wrong must not win by technicalities." - Aeschylus”

I dissent.

"The makers of our Constitution conferred, as against the Government, the right to be left alone- the most comprehensive of rights and most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion upon the Privacy or Due Process rights of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of fact ascertained by such unlawful intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendment." - Chief Justice Taft, Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438.

Well OK, how about we tone it down and just refer to the Tea Party and the other assorted racists and bigots as fascists without an armband. These people aren't conservative or part of any mainstream political thought. Terms like conservative and liberal are thrown about with impunity by the lazy MSM.

All I know is that I hope Dean Young is victorious. It will further help destroy the modern day GOP.

Maybe you should "sit down" Ann Coulter and explain "dehumanizing" people that do not share her "new conservatism" is very much like the "dehumanization" of the Jews, Gypsies and "others" in pre-WWII Germany.

@Hermione@sacredh@Ohiolib Yea their great savior Regan played to the religious extremist. he started that crap. He also raised taxes quite a few times. But in all he cut taxes but increased the deficit by 3 times, then left office and left the mess for the next guy. Not a winning strategy for the country.

@sacredh@Ohiolib I think the counties where the Tea Party can make any threat or impact is dwindling fast. Some sort of fiscal conservatism might push more into blue and swing states, it already has, but the nutty "look-out-for-your-unReal-American-neighbors" and "government is the only pure evil there is" sentiments have no traction except in isolated fly-over parts of the country that, ironically, have few new immigrants and depend heavily on government sponsored projects. In those places the Tea Party never began and never ends.

Barry Goldwater was far from perfect - but he did warn the GOP about giving into religious extremism, among other things. But the GOP got greedy (as we can plainly see). So the party brought this on themselves. I will gladly keep being an Independent voter.